[구상금][공2014상,309]
In case where the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Corporation cannot claim indemnity against a perpetrator or an employer who is the employer under the proviso of Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, whether the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance with the employer is included in the “third party” as prescribed in Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (affirmative)
The term “third party” under Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) refers to a person, other than an insurer, a policyholder, and a relevant beneficiary, who, directly or indirectly, is liable to compensate for damage to a worker suffering from an accident-related worker and a person who has no industrial accident compensation insurance relationship with the insured with the employer, directly or indirectly, pursuant to the tort liability insurance, the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the Civil Act or the State Compensation Act, or the State Compensation Act. In a case where an accident involving the insured’s liability arises, the direct claim against a liability insurer recognized as a victim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is a right separate from the right to claim damages against the insured against the insured. Thus, regardless of whether the insured is a third party under Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the insurer who is directly liable to compensate for the damage to the victim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act includes a third party, which is included in the industrial accident insurance contract concluded with the employer.
Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act
Supreme Court Decision 85Da2285 Decided March 8, 198 (Gong1988, 650) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da60793 Decided January 25, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 340) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86948 Decided March 29, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 612)
Korea Labor Welfare Corporation
Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Choi Ho-ri et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Ulsan District Court Decision 201Na7468 decided November 22, 2012
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
As the instant car is not included in the automobile stipulated in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “the Automobile Accident Compensation Act”), the instant car operator is not liable for damages pursuant to the Automobile Accident Compensation Act in a case where a person operating the instant car has killed or injured another person due to its operation. It is so argued by the grounds of appeal.
However, Article 10 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Business Automobile Insurance of this case (hereinafter “the Insurance Terms and Conditions of this case”) provides for the insurer’s liability for compensation pursuant to Article 10 of the Insurance Contract of this case (hereinafter “the Insurance Contract of this case”) as to the insurer’s liability for compensation. It does not ask whether the insured is legally liable for damages, if the insured is paid or able to be paid as the personal compensation Ⅰ, or if the insured is not admitted as the personal compensation Ⅰ, the amount paid as the personal compensation Ⅰ out of the damages suffered by the insured’s death or injury caused by the accident of the insured automobile which occurred during the possession, use, or management of the vehicle of this case, or the insured’s liability for compensation exceeds the amount which can be paid as the personal compensation Ⅰ. The purport of the Insurance Contract of this case is to deduct the insured from the amount which the insurer is to pay as the personal compensation Ⅰ, and it does not apply only to the case where the insured is paid as the personal compensation 15th (see the Supreme Court Decision 2015th).
According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, among the insurance premiums paid to the Defendant by Seongdong Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Saman Industry”), Article 10 of the insurance clauses of this case provides that “Personal Compensation II may subscribe only to personal Compensation I.” In so doing, it is sufficiently probable to deem that he/she subscribed to personal Compensation I on the premise that he/she subscribed to personal Compensation II in mind of the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case.
In light of the above circumstances, the defendant, who is the insured, can be compensated for all damages caused by the legal liability for damages caused by the accident that occurred in the instant car insurance company from the defendant, who is the insurance company of this case.
It is inappropriate for the court below to hold that the Seongdong Industry is liable to the non-party 1, the victim, or the owner under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. However, it is just in conclusion that the defendant is liable to compensate the non-party 1 for the damages caused by the accident in this case according to the automobile insurance contract with the Seongdong Industry. There is no illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the interpretation of the automobile insurance contract.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) provides that “Where insurance benefits have been paid due to a disaster committed by a third party, the Corporation shall subrogate the third party to the claim for damages against the person who has received the benefits within the limit of the benefits paid: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where a disaster occurs due to the act of a worker committed by two or more business owners who are insured by dividing one business in the same place and are different from the business owners.” Here, the term “third party” refers to a person, other than the insurer, the insured, and the pertinent beneficiaries, who, directly or indirectly, is liable for damages against the victimized worker as a person who has no industrial accident compensation insurance relationship with the victimized worker directly or indirectly, together with the business owner (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu2285, Mar. 8, 198; 2006Da86948, Mar. 29, 207, etc.).
In addition, in the event of an accident attributable to the insured under liability insurance, the direct claim against the liability insurer recognized by the victim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is a claim for damages against the insured by the victim, which is a right separate from the claim for damages against the insured. Thus, the insurer liable for direct damages against the victim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is included in the third party regardless of whether the insured is a third party under Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da60793, Jan. 25, 2007, etc.).
This legal principle applies likewise to cases where it is impossible to claim reimbursement from a sea-employed worker or his/her employer pursuant to the proviso of Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. Thus, the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the employer is included in the third party stipulated in Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that even if the accident of this case is not subrogated to the right to claim compensation for damages against the non-party 2 and the defendant who is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the sexual transport industry, even though the plaintiff cannot subrogate the right to claim compensation for damages against the non-party 1 as an employee of the sexual transport industry as well as the non-party 1, who is the worker of the sexual transport industry, in the process that the sexual transport industry, which is an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder, takes part in the division of one business, and the sexual transport industry, takes part in the process that the sexual transport industry, which is an employee of the sexual transport industry, takes part in the division of one business, the non-party 2 is subrogated to the right to claim compensation for damages against the defendant who is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the sexual transport industry
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)